IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Radar "injects", "sims" And "phantoms"

kawika
post Nov 26 2011, 04:57 PM
Post #21





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 454
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 28 2011, 02:29 PM) *
We have plenty of data to scrutinize. Grab some and start looking for evidence. It doesn't have to be perfect, just thorough.

PM me your email and I will send you the list of FAA files.


Almost a month has gone by and no takers.

I think there is much to be gleaned from the records. If nothing else, a greater understanding for the future, should any research be done.

Seems like everyone is satisfied with the level of understanding and don't want to probe any further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 4 2011, 06:53 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



I would suggest a practical test of the hypothesis.
In the military radar data from 9/11 there are very obviously really many targets which are highly suspected to be the injects - identifiable with consistently invalid validation bits - they contain (invalid) secondary radar parameters which otherwise usually originate in a plane's transponder and are validated, and which then largely cease to occur in the record after 14:00 UTC. So I would think that if we would search in the available civilian radar records and compare whether there consistently is an equivalent of this "clouds" of invalid targets we see in the military data, it could maybe sufficiently answer the question whether there indeed could be confirmed the same phenomena in the civilian radar data or not.
I was just really briefly trying such a comparison and I still didn't find in the civilian data any of the suspected injected targets I see in the military data.
If somebody wants to research this thoroughly and verify or refute this my very preliminary find I'm able filter and export the long list of the invalid targets records from the military radar data for comparison with the civilian records.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 4 2011, 08:04 PM
Post #23





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



Fine to see you here again, tume.

This post has been edited by Sergio: Dec 4 2011, 08:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 13 2012, 05:46 PM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 28-February 10
Member No.: 4,935



Hi all
a "simple" question or my 2 cents

during all these years lots of times we "heard" about "beep injections", "live-fly exercices", "military drills" and so on.
we also "heard" about black-boxes, and radar tracking datas (ntsb, 84thrades).
We all dig this sh*t deep looking for any anomalies

ok. So the question is:
and if all were right, but wrong at the same time?
I mean:

why we ever never focus on the the fact that electronical warfare and stealth counter measures mean that radars can be fooled be showing tracks moving with speeds totally different from the one the real planes have?
this is the base of "stealth flight": ATC see a bleep, but they see the bleep pretty much far away from where it really is. they can calculate trajectory and estimate times and routes, but in the meanwhile plane is totally somewhere else (making plane stealthy)

I mean, why we should take true as gold what they show us in the "official" radar tracks?
yes we have 4 planes NTSB radar tracks analyzed, but.... what if if they were fooled too?

This post has been edited by bambooboy: Jan 13 2012, 05:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 13 2012, 06:02 PM
Post #25





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 28-February 10
Member No.: 4,935



Hi Tume

on this thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10803532
Woody was trying to contact you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 7 2012, 05:05 PM
Post #26





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (bambooboy @ Jan 13 2012, 05:46 PM) *
Hi all
a "simple" question or my 2 cents

during all these years lots of times we "heard" about "beep injections", "live-fly exercices", "military drills" and so on.
we also "heard" about black-boxes, and radar tracking datas (ntsb, 84thrades).
We all dig this sh*t deep looking for any anomalies

ok. So the question is:
and if all were right, but wrong at the same time?
I mean:

why we ever never focus on the the fact that electronical warfare and stealth counter measures mean that radars can be fooled be showing tracks moving with speeds totally different from the one the real planes have?
this is the base of "stealth flight": ATC see a bleep, but they see the bleep pretty much far away from where it really is. they can calculate trajectory and estimate times and routes, but in the meanwhile plane is totally somewhere else (making plane stealthy)

I mean, why we should take true as gold what they show us in the "official" radar tracks?
yes we have 4 planes NTSB radar tracks analyzed, but.... what if if they were fooled too?


Good questions and observations, Bamboo. I agree with your larger point--I think the radar data must be suspect. Though it might be right, it might be wrong. Certainly the high speeds derived from it suggest that it's not all that accurate.

Having never been involved in radar spoofing, my understanding (very limited) is that with "injects", they can insert targets and tracks that don't really exist. It's rather an elaborate video game.

As for stealth technology, such an aircraft is designed to deflect, or not return, radar signals. Also used for that is RAM, radar absorbent material, though it has other problems, like falling off the airframe and being damaged by rain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 8 2012, 08:06 AM
Post #27





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I have mentioned in the past that the data which appears on a screen such as PC or a radar in ATC is electronic / digital data which at some point is conveyed over wires and in the case of supposed radar and radio communications via radio frequencies sent from a transmitter to an antenna before it is converted to wire line signals.

We've been told that there is / was the capability to insert simulated data into ATC radar screens. If true this seems to suggest that almost all digital / electronic data could be *simulated* and inserted. No radar screen is technically *real world* as it is only a presentation of data on a screen... assumed to be transmitted etc. from the real targets... a facsimile of the real world.

The same can be said for radio transmissions... and perhaps telephone transmissions. One can't identify the source. I am not familiar with telephone technology but if there is no record of the switches and routers for a given call creating the actual path of the call, the could be made from the room next door to the person receiving it... the receiver has no way of knowing. Likewise if one has the radio frequency is seems one could game that system too rather easily. You just don't know where the signal is coming from.

It seems like the capability to fake this electrical and radio transmission data, while not perhaps rocket science is more an intel-military type capability. If it can be established that the digital/electronic/communications data was faked/simulated and/or inserted into the civilian *system* it strongly suggests an intel-military type operation and not a 19 hijacker one.

One of the main problems about the understanding of the events of 9/11 is having reliable data to work with. If the evidence of data is suspect, tampered with, simulated that you have little real data to reconstruct the event. This DOES seem to be a problem for investigators. The black boxes should reveal reliable data. But could a black box be programed in advance and substituted so that it would/could be found and the data assumed to accurate.

Once you suspect data as being faked or simulated you are very slippery grounds as far as determining exactly what occurred. If you can prove it to be faked it certainly puts those who provided this data in the hot seat. What we have seen is the officials have controlled the evidence and in many cases not made it available to the public using the *national security* card as the reason. In some cases this defies credulity completely. Of what national security interest concerns are the construction plans to the destroyed World Trade Center? Of the numerous videos from the Pentagon on 9/11.

It's pretty obvious that the official *investigations* were largely cover stories of cover ups. But can we tell what they were covering up? Like the official narrative... the alternative narrative seem to be largely based on speculation and unreliable unvetted data. All the accounts have a level of internal logical consistency to them. But all seem to share the element of suspension of disbelief. All of the explanations, including the OCT share elements which defy credulity on one level or another.

All criminals and conspirators would seek to divert attention away from them and on to others as the culprits. This IS part and parcel of criminal behavior...except for some terrorist acts where the terrorists apparently have claimed credit to advance some political agenda. The acts always are followed by the issuance of demands or statements by the group... or in the case of suicide bombers vids they made before their crime. The 9/11 events seem to not follow this pattern.

The whole event is a paradox wrapped in an enigma.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 8 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #28





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I think you have touched upon the heart of the matter, SanderO.

The cellphone calls, upon which so much of the OCT is based, are easily faked, especially when one has access to the C-130 that is jammed with nothing but radio equipment and designed to disrupt and overpower the enemy's communications abilities.

Anybody with a handheld radio can make "fake" transmissions, and it has been reported in the news for years.

Good post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 9 2012, 09:40 AM
Post #29





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



If the "electronic" and digital data is unreliable and could be faked by intel/military/media and was used to create what we know to be the OCT... what IS the data which is available which IS reliable? And what can we deduced from it?

Pilots have pointed out the flight profiles for the commercial airliners supposed involved. For the WTC would a *normal* commercial jet flying under normal conditions be able to create the observed damage and deliver the fuel to lead to the weakening and collapse of the top sections of each tower?

Is it technically possible for the twin towers to collapse if the top 16 floors collapse (tower 1)? What would the failure mode be?

Is it possible for building 7 to collapse as was observed? What would the failure mode be?

Is it possible for a commercial jet to crash into a field and leave as little plane debris as seen in the photos of the site immediately after the event?

Is it possible for a wide bodied plane to cause the impact damage to the pentagon seen on photos taken directly after the "event" showing destruction of the facade?

Much of the understanding about 9/11 has to be based on what we DO know about the performance of planes and buildings in general... and digital *systems*.

Unfortunately we have precious little actual reliable data from the events of 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd September 2014 - 02:48 PM